You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not establish it had negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 (f):

The plaintiff was not in possession of the note at the time of commencement of the action. Further, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, that it was authorized to act on behalf of FHLBC to commence the foreclosure action, since the plaintiff did not submit any power of attorney, servicing agreement, or other agreement authorizing the plaintiff to commence this action … . Moreover, the affidavits relied upon by the plaintiff contained only conclusory assertions that the plaintiff was the loan servicer, without asserting the existence of any agreement delegating to the plaintiff the authority to commence this action on FHLBC’s behalf in 2012. * * *

… [T]here is no evidence that the plaintiff attempted to obtain a waiver of the investor’s self-employment restriction, which, according to the plaintiff’s own denial letter, was the reason for its denial of the defendant’s first and second loan modification applications. …

Since the defendant’s submissions raise a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to resolve this action through loan modification or other potential workout options … , the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine this issue before deciding that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Lofria, 2021 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-17-21

 

,

THE AFFIRMATIONS OF DISCONTINUANCE AND CANCELLATION WERE SILENT ON THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND THEREFORE DID NOT STOP THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM RUNNING; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred despite the affirmations of discontinuance and cancellation which were silent on the acceleration of the debt:

“A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … . As this Court held in Engel, a lender’s mere act of discontinuing an action, without more, does not constitute, in and of itself, an affirmative act revoking an earlier acceleration of the debt … . Rather, in order to be effective as a notice of revocation, the notice must contain an indication that the lender would accept installment payments from the homeowner in satisfaction of his or her prospective monthly payment obligations … .

Here, … the six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt in November 2010, when JP Morgan commenced the prior action to foreclose the subject mortgage. Accordingly, the statute of limitations expired in November 2016, and the instant action, commenced in July 2017, was untimely. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the affirmations of discontinuance and cancellation did not constitute an affirmative act of revocation, since they are silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and did not otherwise indicate that JP Morgan would accept installment payments from the borrowers … .  FV-1, Inc. v Palaguachi, 2021 NY Slip Op 00838, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, ,

COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that, “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” … . Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . “By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing, which can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … .

Here, the only purported evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion to show that it complied with RPAPL 1304 was a hearsay statement in the affidavit of the plaintiff’s legal affairs representative. Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, the 90-day notice which was attached to her affirmation does not demonstrate that the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 were met … . The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or proof of first-class mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that the defendant was served by first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff not only failed to provide proof of the actual first-class mailing, but its legal affairs representative also lacked personal knowledge of the purported mailing and did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity that purportedly sent the notices … . Thus, the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the letter had been sent to the defendant by first-class mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Broderick, 2021 NY Slip Op 00825, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, ,

FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THE ANSWER IS NO LONGER DEEMED A WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to amend her answer to add the lack of standing defense. Pursuant to RPAPL 1302-a the failure to include the lack of standing defense in the answer is no longer deemed waiver of the defense:

… [T]he defendant did not waive the affirmative defense of lack of standing. RPAPL 1302-a … provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of CPLR 3211(e), “any objection or defense based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing in a foreclosure proceeding related to a home loan, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision six of section thirteen hundred four of this article, shall not be waived if a defendant fails to raise the objection or defense in a responsive pleading or pre-answer motion to dismiss.” Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend her answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing … . Further, the defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the holder or assignee of the note at the time the action was commenced … . In response, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its standing as a matter of law … . US Bank N.A. v Blake-Hovanec, 2021 NY Slip Op 00893, Second Department 2-10-21

 

, ,

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF HOW MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE CAN (SHOULD) BE PROVEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming the judgment of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar, offered a detailed explanation of how mailing of the RPAPl 1304 notice can be proven:

The Supreme Court … properly determined that … Nationstar proved sufficient mailing of the statutory 90-day preforeclosure notice as required by RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) provides that, “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304[2]). Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, “‘the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing,’ which can be ‘established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure'” … . The notice must also be in 14-point type … . Here, at the framed-issue hearing, Nationstar submitted evidence that a third-party vendor mailed the 90-day preforeclosure notice through the testimony of a witness who had personal knowledge of the vendor’s standard business practice with regard to sending the 90-day preforeclosure notice to borrowers, and who affirmed, based on the business records she reviewed regarding the subject loan, that the notices had been sent to the defendant in compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Notwithstanding the use of a third party to mail the 90-day preforeclosure notice, Nationstar tendered sufficient evidence demonstrating strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Paganini, 2021 NY Slip Op 00852, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 WAS MAILED TO THE PROPER ADDRESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 were not complied with and the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There was no proof the notice was mailed to the right place:

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . Although the statute requires that the notice be sent to “the property address and any other address of record,” the affidavits submitted by plaintiff show that the notices were mailed neither to the mortgaged premises nor to defendant’s residence. One of the addresses to which the notices were sent not only was never occupied by defendant but also specified a unit that did not exist at that street address. The other was sent to the correct high-rise apartment building of more than 400 units but was missing the unit number. Thus, plaintiff did not send defendant proper notice under RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Moran, 2021 NY Slip Op 00645, First Dept 2-4-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TAX LIEN FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE NOTICE TO REDEEM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees in this tax lien foreclosure action because plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant was properly served with the notice to redeem:

Pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0(c), prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff was required to serve the defendant with a notice to redeem “by personal service, as defined in the Civil Practice Law and Rules of the State of New York” (see Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0[a]). Here, the plaintiff purportedly served the defendant with the notice to redeem by “nail and mail” service (see CPLR 308[4]). However, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, this service was ineffective, as the plaintiff failed to exercise the requisite due diligence in first attempting to serve the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) … .

Where, as here, a plaintiff fails to properly serve the notice to redeem prior to commencing a foreclosure action, the plaintiff is precluded from recovering attorney’s fees from the person to whom the notice was required to be sent, provided that the person “offers to pay the penalties allowed by law at any time before final judgment is entered” (Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0[f]). Here, the defendant offered to pay the penalties allowed by law in a letter … , nearly one month prior to entry of the final judgment … . DBW TL Holdco 2014, LLC v Kirk, 2021 NY Slip Op 00543, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

ONLY THE HUSBAND TOOK OUT A MORTGAGE AND DEFENDANTS DENIED THE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE WIFE’S INTEREST WAS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE COURT NOTED THAT “NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED” IN AN ANSWER TO A COMPLAINT IS DEEMED AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate its foreclosure action could affect the wife’s (Gloria’s) interest in the property based on the husband’s (David’s) mortgage. It was not necessary for defendants to claim that Gloria’s interest was not subject to an equitable mortgage as an affirmative defense. [Although not related to the equitable mortgage issue, the Second Department noted that “Neither Admitted nor Denied” in an answer to an allegation in a complaint should be deemed to admit the allegation (see CPLR 3018[a] …)]:

… [W]e disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants, by not pleading it as an affirmative defense, waived their defense to the cause of action relating to the alleged equitable mortgage on Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property. “CPLR 3018, which governs responsive pleadings, draws a distinction between denials and affirmative defenses” … . “Denials generally relate to allegations setting forth the essential elements that must be proved in order to sustain the particular cause of action” and “[t]hus a mere denial of one or more elements of the cause of action will suffice to place them in issue” … . A defendant, however, must plead, as an affirmative defense, “all matters which, if not pleaded, would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise or would raise issues of fact not appearing on the face of a prior pleading” … . Here, the defendants, in their answer, denied the allegations in the complaint relating to the existence of an equitable mortgage on Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property. As the denials of an equitable mortgage were in response to allegations in the complaint, they would not take the plaintiff by surprise. * * *

Where spouses own property as tenants by the entirety, a conveyance by one spouse, to which the other has not consented, cannot bind the entire fee … . The mortgage executed by David Saff did not encumber Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property, and the plaintiff failed to submit evidence demonstrating that it held an equitable mortgage on Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property. Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the causes of action to foreclose the mortgage and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an equitable mortgage against the interest of Gloria Saff in the subject property. U.S. Bank N.A. v Saff, 2021 NY Slip Op 00590, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

THE ESTATE OF THE HUSBAND WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY PASSED TO THE WIFE UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the husband’s (Thomas’s) estate was not a necessary party in this foreclosure action because the property passed to the decedent’s wife (Judy) upon Thomas’s death:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submission of the deed and Thomas’s death certificate established prima facie that Thomas and Judy had held the subject property as a married couple, and that they remained married at the time of his death. Therefore, Thomas’s death “result[ed] in the defeasance of the deceased spouse’s coextensive interest in the property” … , and the surviving spouse automatically inherited his ownership interest in the property. Moreover, the plaintiff explicitly provided that it would not seek a deficiency judgment against Thomas’s estate … . Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff established that Thomas’s estate was not a necessary party to foreclosure and the plaintiff was entitled to discontinue the action against Thomas, remove his name from the caption, and to vacate the stay which arose upon Thomas’s death … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Auteri, 2021 NY Slip Op 00588, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted and, upon a search of the record, summary judgment should have been granted to defendant in this foreclosure action. The proof of mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was not sufficient:

Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . The copy of the certified mail receipt it submitted is undated and blank in other parts, and shows the signature of someone other than defendant. The copy of the pre-paid first-class mail envelope has no recipient’s name or address on it. Further, the affidavits plaintiff submitted do not demonstrate the loan servicer’s employees’ familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of the servicer that had mailed the 90-day notices and the notice of default. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Calhoun, 2021 NY Slip Op 00398, First Dept 1-26-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy